Why is David Cameron tarring gay people with the same brush as paedophiles?

Controversial: Philip Schofield prepares to hand his list of alleged Tory paedophiles to David Cameron on today’s This Morning, watched by co-presenter Holly Willoughby. Concerns over whether he should have done it are totally outweighed by the Prime Minister’s inappropriate reference to “gay people”.

It’s what they say when they’re caught off-guard that really defines a politician.

Today, comedy Prime Minister David Cameron was caught off-guard by Philip Schofield (of all people) – and the result was not funny at all. In a This Morning interview, Schofe handed over a piece of paper with three names on it, of Conservatives accused of being involved in child abuse.

The presenter said there were many allegations online about people who might have carried out abuse, and he had been able to find the names on the list after searching for about three minutes. He said they were people Mr Cameron knew, and asked if the PM would be talking to them.

Cameron’s response: “There is a danger that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay.”

Gay? What, gay in general? Everyone else is talking about paedophiles, David; why did you just broaden it into a debate about homosexuality?

We don’t want to know about your prejudices, David. Paedophiles do not have to be, by definition, gay.

If a responsible adult wants to engage in a same-sex relationship with another consenting adult, that is none of my business, nor yours, nor the State’s.

It is a world away from what is under discussion. Paedophilia is the action of an irresponsible adult, engaging in an inappropriate physical relationship with a minor – of either sex – who is therefore legally unable to give consent to it. That is our business, and I suggest you concentrate on it, starting with the allegations against the members of your party.

Mr Cameron went on with a personal warning to Schofe: “I’m worred about the sort of thing you are doing right now – giving me a list of names that you’ve taken off the internet.”

On one level, that was never going to work. Public sympathy will always be on the side of Philip Schofield when a politician tries to intimidate him (as I think Mr Cameron was trying to do). And there is an argument that it is in the public interest for Schofe to put evidence before the Prime Minister that accusations are being made in a public forum and that he needs to do something about it.

Having said that, I should add a few words of caution, because the PM was absolutely right to warn against a witch-hunt.

Back in 17th century America, witchcraft was the taboo; in 1950s America, it was Communism. Now, here, it’s paedophilia. The link between them is that an accusation automatically led to the belief that the named person was guilty of the crime, whether they had committed it or not.

I know a man who is in prison at the moment after being convicted of abusing a child. I was at the trial and heard all the evidence and I am convinced that he did not do it. It’s my opinion that the accusation was enough to sway the jury. The gentleman concerned won an appeal against an intial conviction, at which the presiding judge overturned the verdict after asking for the factual evidence on which the defendant had been convicted and being told there was none. He sent it back for retrial and the jury convicted him again – as I say – because in my opinion he was accused of the modern version of witchcraft. Or Communism.

No organisation exists to represent the interests of a person who has been wrongly convicted of paedophilia. Once a person has been tarred with that brush, it sticks to them for life.

The whole issue of paedophilia is therefore surrounded by abuse. Abuse of children. Abuse of the system by people who accuse the innocent (for purposes of their own). Abuse of the system by police officers who refuse to investigate legitimate allegations (as we’ve heard in the Jimmy Savile affair). Abuse of the system by politicians who want to cover up the involvement of their colleagues in a scandal (as it has been alleged).

But, Mr Cameron, you can’t judge that a person is a paedophile according to whether or not they are gay.

11 thoughts on “Why is David Cameron tarring gay people with the same brush as paedophiles?

  1. Richard Powell

    But, Mr Cameron, you can’t judge that a person is a paedophile according to whether or not they are gay.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Trouble with that is, you’ve just told me I am wrong without saying why, so I have no reason to pay any attention to you or give your opinion any credence at all.
      You tell me I can say anything and Mr Cameron cannot; that is not true. I must be as careful with my words as the Prime Minister, if not more so. The problem here is that he was careLESS with his words. If he had thought a little more before speaking, I would not have had the basis for the article.
      And I am not wrong. Being homosexual is not a prerequisite for being a paedophile.

  2. Mike Sivier

    Some have chosen to berate Philip Schofield for looking on the internet to find the names of Conservative Party members accused of being paedophiles. They have suggested that this is scurrilous behaviour.
    To put it in context, I think it would be useful to point out that 37 per cent of the people who came to my blog site via search engines on November 8 were looking for information about the identities of those individuals.
    I’m not going to comment on whether it’s a bad thing to do, but it does seem to be human nature to do it.

  3. Joseph R Marritt

    I can’t comment on the paedophilia allegations because I haven’t really read up on the evidence but I guess they’re already f*cking kids with the education drops so it wouldn’t surprise me.

    David Cameron just wanted to change the subject. It’s obviously something that bothers him; he tries to change the subject but fails on a whole new level while giving away subtle facial expressions and stutters. Replace him with Neil De Grasse Tyson or someone that just has ambition to create a better world tomorrow with a future outlook. I’m glad he f*cked up, honestly, he looks like a ten year old boy’s face glued onto a walking forehead. I guess that’s why all the other politicians like him so much?

  4. Silver

    I was perplexed at Camerons Gay Gaff. Heterosexual people can be paedophiles as can gays. A gay person is no more likely to have these tendencies than a heterosexual.

    Either Cameron is bigoted, or trying to deflect attention and make it a gay issue. Which it is not.

  5. manchesterflickchick

    I agree with your points, in fact you have stated them so well – I simply couldn’t agree more! What the hell was Cameron thinking? That being a rhetorical question, as the answer to it is obviously evident.

  6. Howard

    Cameron was right – the list he was added was one of predominantly gay tory politicians and he was totally understandable in making the comment he made.

    This knee jerk outrage is a joke.

  7. david pearce

    Cameron’s response: “There is a danger that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people called Howard.”
    how would you have felt if he’d said that? His comment WILL lead to a degree of queer bashing. Remember the paediatrician that was attacked – because someone didn’t know the difference?
    McCarthy persecuted people who’d been to meetings/read books/ associated with certain people.
    People with disabilities are attacked in the 21st century because they are scroungers.
    In the witch trials midwives and herbalists were killed just because they were misunderstood.
    Yes SOME paedo’s are gay, some are straight, some are married and would never consider having sex with a same sex adult BUT would with a child

Comments are closed.